We appreciate the enthusiasm and vigour - some will claim sometimes too excitably so - that the contractor general, Greg Christie, has brought to the job and his readiness to hold public officials accountable for their conduct in the management of public resources.

In that regard, this newspaper welcomes Mr Christie's announcement of a probe into the agreement between the Government and Aubyn Hill and his firm, Corporate Strategies Ltd (CSL), to lead the negotiations for the divestment of the assets of the state-owned Sugar Company of Jamaica (SCJ).

The Office of the Contractor General (OCG) parachuted itself into the act in the face of last week's eruption of public disquiet at the revelation that Mr Hill and his firm were being paid J$1.883 million per month, or close to $2 million, when expenses are taken into account. Since July 2008, Mr Hill/CSL has been paid about $27 million or a bit over US$303,000 at current exchange rates.

Low-trust environment

In the context of Jamaica, that is a fair bit of money, a sum over which, especially in our low-trust environment, it is easy to rile people with assertions of exorbitance and claims of corruption. This, indeed, has already begun to happen - the linking of Mr Hill's $27 million to the Government's inability immediately to meet the cost of $7 billion in additional salaries for nurses after the reclassification of their jobs.

In a sense, the Golding administration, having sown the wind, is reaping, as they say, the whirlwind. For in opposition, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), too often, framed government contracts and actions with which it disagreed in a context of corruption and held every such deal against the backdrop of the supposed disfranchisement of the 'small man'.

This, of course, is not to claim that then, as perhaps now, corruption is not a major problem in Jamaica, with public officials as the primary facilitators. Nor is it a pronouncement of the efficacy or otherwise of Mr Hill's deal.

However, it does Jamaica - all of us - a disservice, in this search for scandals, to wrap every deal or any payment above minimum wage as some kind of monumental rip-off or nefarious action. Of course, public officials are obliged to be accountable for the handling of the people's resources, but we expect the approach to such things to be measured and balanced.

Work to be done

For instance, rather than emotive responses to the value of Mr Hill's contract, we would have preferred if there was discussion on the scope of the work to be done, the expected deliverables and the timeline for performance.

It would have been useful, too, if his pay was compared with the cost of similar consultancies, or against, say, the remuneration of receiver of Century National Bank when the then government intervened in that bank.

Mr Christie, we suspect, will take this approach even as he looks at the obvious, but overlooked, aspect in the issue in the rush to focus on the perceived hand in the cookie jar: whether there was transparency and inherent conflicts in Mr Hill's appointment, given his role as chairman of the SCJ.

The Government must properly manage every penny of taxpayers' money, saving every cent possible. There is a difference between this and national diminution. The Aubyn Hill controversy makes the case for transparency.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.